(REACT No 2 1998, pp.18-23)

Approaches to Diglossia in the Classroom: The Middle Way

by David Deterding

Introduction

The concept of diglossia was developed by Ferguson (1959). It
describes a situation where two languages or language varieties
occur side by side in a community, and each has a clear range of
functions. One of these varieties, the H-variety (standing
for 'High'), is adopted as the standard variety and is used in
official situations, such as government broadcasts, religious
services, and teaching; and the other, the L-variety (for
'Low'), is used in informal situations, such as local markets and
conversations between friends. The focus of this article is to
discuss how the concept of diglossia might be appropriate to
describe the Singapore English-speaking community, and to
consider what approaches can be adopted by teachers towards the
use of the L-variety in schools.

Examples of diglossia that have been widely quoted are:

the Arabic community, where each region has its
own colloquial variety, but classical Arabic is still
taught in schools and is regarded by many as "more
beautiful" and therefore more appropriate for
written texts

the Swiss-German community, where all children
learn Standard German in schools, and most books and
newspapers are in Standard German, but the people
continue to use the local Swiss-German dialect on an
everyday basis

the Tamil community, where the language taught in
classrooms and used in literature is sharply different
from the colloquial variety

In all these societies, there is high prestige in
demonstrating an ability to use the H-variety, but not everyone
has sufficient education to achieve this. However, all members of
the society use the L-variety at home and when chatting with
close friends. In fact, use of the H-variety instead of the
L-variety in an informal situation would be regarded as quite
absurd.

Defining Characteristics of Diglossia

Three characteristics of a diglossic situation can be
identified:

the circumstances under which each variety is used are
clearly defined, so there is little mixing between the
two

the two varieties are clearly separate linguistically, so
that at one time a speaker may be speaking either the
H-variety or the L-variety, but never something half-way
between the two

everyone can speak the L-variety, and will do so in
informal situations, such as with friends and family
members; but not everyone can use the H-variety

However, the strict separation between the two varieties has
been questioned, for example by Fasold (1984), so even in the
archetypal diglossic Arabic and Tamil societies, there may be
more of a continuum between the H and L varieties than was once
supposed.

Research on styles of English in Singapore

Pakir (1991a, 1991b) describes the usage of English in
Singapore with a model of expanding triangles, such
that the style of English adopted varies according to two
variables: the proficiency of the speaker, and the formality of
the occasion. According to this model, the most proficient
speakers have the largest triangle, with the greatest range of
styles, while less well-educated speakers have a smaller range to
modify their speech in formal situations.

Poedjosoedarmo (1995) develops this model, observing that the
triangle representing well-educated speakers does not necessarily
share the same base as that for less proficient speakers, because
the better-educated may never use the most colloquial variety of
English; and the model needs to be modified further to allow for
variation due to such factors as age, gender, and ethnic origin
(Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo, 1998:149).

Instead of describing such variation along a continuum, Gupta
(1992) prefers to describe the Singapore English-speaking
community as exhibiting diglossia, as she observes that many
members of this community are proficient in two distinct
different varieties of English:

SSE (for Singapore Standard English):
an H-variety which is close to the standard variety
taught in schools.

SCE (for Singapore Colloquial
English): an L-variety that is widely used in
informal situations. This colloquial variety is commonly
known as 'Singlish'.

Many students quite naturally switch between these two
varieties, as, for instance, when moving from the classroom where
they use SSE, to the canteen where they immediately switch to SCE
to chat with friends, and this behaviour supports a diglossic
model.

Gupta (1994) charts the progress of four young children, two
girls in one family and two boys in another, as they develop the
ability to switch between SSE and SCE in appropriate situations.
She shows that while the children make little difference in the
language they use with different speakers at a very early age, by
time they are five, they are rather more likely to use features
of Standard English when talking with Gupta (an expatriate) than
with their sibling or mother.

The expanding triangles model suggests some
problems with describing the Singapore English-speaking community
as truly diglossic:

It is not clear that the two varieties are completely
distinct. There may be more of a continuum between them,
because, for example, some members of the community whose
level of education is not very high have an H-variety
that is halfway between SSE and SCE.

There are some members of the community who never use the
L-variety. This is particularly true of some of the older
generation of English-educated people, who may have a
strong aversion to the use of SCE, though it seems to be
used by almost all young Singaporeans in some situations.

Even though the Singapore English-speaking community may not
meet all the defining characteristics of a strict definition of
diglossia, if we accept that diglossia may be used to describe
situations where the separation between the two language
varieties is not absolute, then the concept may be useful in
describing the linguistic situation in the English-community in
Singapore, or at least the young generation of this community.

English in the Singapore Classroom

Regardless of whether we can describe the Singapore
English-speaking community as strictly diglossic or not, it is
undoubtedly true that many students use SCE (Singlish) regularly,
and many but not all students may have the ability to switch to a
more standard variety of English under some circumstances. What
attitude should school teachers adopt towards the use of SCE?

Trudgill (1995:185-188) identifies three possible approaches
to dealing with the use of non-standard dialects in school:

elimination of non-standard speech: Teachers at
all times try to prevent students using their
non-standard varieties, and correct every occurring
instance of a non-standard feature. Some teachers even go
as far as punishing students who refuse to conform in the
use of the standard variety.

bidialectism: Teachers accept that the
non-standard variety will continue to be used in informal
situations, but try to encourage the use of the standard
variety for some situations in school, particularly for
written work.

appreciation of dialect differences: If children
suffer because they use a non-standard variety, this is
the fault of society, not of the children. It is
society's attitudes that should be changed, not the
language of children.

The first of these approaches is extremely common in schools,
not just in Singapore, but in England as well. The problem is
that it is unlikely to be successful in many cases, because it is
very hard to change the way that people speak, particularly as
there is strong peer pressure among children to use the same
speech habits as their classmates, not their teachers. This
approach may also be destructive, as it is implying that students
are inferior on the basis of the way they speak.

The third approach, of trying to change society, is
exceptionally idealistic. While many people believe that society
should indeed be changed, we have to recognise that this is not
going to happen in the short term, and while society is the way
it is, the future prospects of students are harmed if they are
unable to use a variety of English that is close to the standard.
Not only will they suffer when they take their examinations, they
will also lose out when they have to speak in formal situations,
such as attending job interviews. Only extremists would be
willing to sacrifice the future prospects of their students for
ideological reasons.

For this reason, the second approach, of teachers accepting
the existence of two varieties of English, but trying to
encourage the use of a standard variety for some purposes, is the
middle path between the two extremes, and it is the approach that
is most likely to be successful. It is even possible for teachers
to encourage students to be proud of their own indigenous variety
of English while simultaneously stressing that access to the
standard variety is vitally important for future success. And
teachers can furthermore recognise that the ability to switch
appropriately between the H and L varieties of English when
required demonstrates sophisticated behaviour that shows a good
understanding of the linguistic demands of the society we live
in.

Conclusion

As a colloquial variety of English is widely established among
young people in Singapore, it is not possible to eliminate it. At
the same time, however, students need to be aware that the
ability to use a more standard variety easily and competently in
some situations is absolutely essential for their future.
Acceptance of the two varieties, and encouragement for students
to select the most appropriate variety for each situation is
therefore the most moderate and practical approach.

Attempts to eliminate Singlish entirely by punishing students
who use it, and recommendations that Singlish should be adopted
in the classroom, represent two extreme positions, both of which
should be avoided.

Implications

A colloquial variety of English seems to be becoming
established as the informal language of choice among many young
Singaporeans. Teachers need to consider carefully how to deal
with this non-standard variety. If we follow the suggestions of
Trudgill (1995), we can conclude:

1. It is impossible to eliminate Singlish.

Attempts to eliminate the use of colloquial English by
Singaporean schoolchildren are almost certainly doomed to
failure, and are likely to be counter-productive.

2. Proficiency in Standard English is essential for
everyone.

Use of standard English will certainly continue to be required
for exams and also in many formal situations in Singapore. Anyone
who is not able to use Standard English when required will be at
a disadvantage.

3. Teachers should encourage the use of Standard English
in the classroom.

To ensure that their pupils develop proficiency in standard
English, teachers should encourage them to use it at all times in
the classroom and when writing.

4. Teachers can be tolerant towards the use of Singlish
outside the classroom.

While pupils should learn to use standard English in the
classroom and when writing, teachers can adopt a tolerant
attitude towards the use of colloquial English by their pupils in
informal situations outside of the classroom.

5. Pupils can be proud of their ability in the two
varieties.

Pupils can be given a sense of pride in their effective use of
the two different varieties in suitable situations. Successful
use of colloquial English in informal situations and standard
English in the classroom and when writing demonstrates
sophisticated linguistic behaviour.